Subj : Re: "Serenity" dropping off in the Box Office take...
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Fri Oct 14 2005 08:50:37

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


Trouble wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
>
> > I'd disagree with that. People that go and see movies at the theatre
> > are MORE likely to purchase a DVD, not less.
>
> based on nothing

I guess that makes two of us, then. :)

>
> >> > those that BUY a DVD will more than likely have seen the film in
> >> > the theatre (less likely if they've rented it).
>
> >> Where in the world do you get this idea?

> > If you took the trouble to see the film in the theatre, then you are
> > more likely to buy it. Makes perfect sense.  It doesn't mean that
> > those who rent won't buy, but just look at the ones who do buy the DVD
> > right off the bat. Yup, those that saw it in the theatre.
>
> again you got no basis for this assumption

Personel experience, seeing other people's DVD collections and asking
about them, etc.  Nope, it's not as good as a nationwide survey, but
since you have offered no proof either...:)

> >> Hell if I've heard good things about a movie from people I trust, I
> >> might buy it at Wal-Mart for $12-14 instead of renting it at all.
>
> > Ah, personel experience.  My personel experience in looking at my DVD
> > collection shows that for every DVD I purchased after renting, there's
> > about 10 or more for every one that I saw in the theatre.
>
> > So, you work for Netflix? Or just get a commision for every plug?
>
> Nope I work in a totally unrelated field, I just think they are closer to
> the operating model that works right now.

It is quite popular, that's fer sure.

> >> > However, DVD sales tend to pull in more
> >> > MONEY because DVDs tend to cost more than tickets.
>
> >> Well it depends, if I spend $20 buying a DVD its way less money to me
> >> than dinner and $18 movie tickets for me and my wife. Everyone I know
> >> eats a decent meal at a restaurant before or after the movie instead
> >> of paying the same $20-30 bucks to the theater for rip-off hot dogs
> >> nachos and stale popcorn.
>
> > WHAT...Trouble! Studios get their money from TICKET SALES, not
> > Concession SALES, that's how the theatre makes money.
>
> > Ticket: 10 bucks
> > DVD Sale: 15 - 20 bucks.
>
> > Which makes more for the studio, DVD sale or ticket purchase? And
> > since when did you get the idea that Concession sales are studio
> > profit?
>
> Concessions are a part of my total outlay, and I'd gladly pay $12-14 for
> the movie on DVD than $18 for tickets plus whatever my concession ends up
> being.
>
> Because I don't care what makes more for the studio, I care which movie
> alternative costs me less, lets me pause it when my wife runs to the
> bathroom, avoid lines, crowds, and people's idiot children with their
> cell phones.

My point was that studios do NOT earn money from concessions and you
can always just pay the movie ticket WITHOUT paying for anything else.

> > Perhaps. Again, I'd like to see some comparison statistics that chart
> > it over the past few years.  This year hasn't been all that great for
> > ticket sales, but last year broke some records.  To prove a trend,
> > we'll need to see some stats.
>
> Well last year there were record breaking movies... this year's crop
> sucked... the trend will be year over year going back at least 5 years.

Arguably, that trend has been going on for decades.

> > Hmm, in ticket sales or ticket profit? The most profitable years in
> > the movie business have come within this decade.
>
> This decade with movie ticket prices up 50%

True.  It's also true that overall movie attendance has been declining
for decades (during WW2, 83 million tickets were sold each WEEK).  But
movie attendance can certainly be compared to rentals & sales.
Generally speaking, the better the film does at the theatre, the better
the rental & sales are.  Just check out the top 5 rentals/sales of the
week.  They are mostly films that did well at the box office.

> I think you'll find that the original Star Wars movies and Indiana Jones
> movies made more profit on lesser budgets adjusted to this years $$$ than
> anything made today.

"Star Wars" was indeed a low budget film, even by the 70's standard. It
succeeded primarily because of tapping into a new audience. The Indy
Jones series would cost over $100 million each if made today.

> >> > And if it's such a hassle
> >> > to go see a movie in the theatre, then Xmas time should be worse
> >> > (more family, more hassles around).
>
> >> More family movies = less babysitting...
>
> > Yea, "family" movies like "The Passion of the Christ" just bombed big
> > time, didn't it? An "R" rated film released during the spring, yup, it
> > bombed fer sure.
>
> Two most written about characters of ALL TIME Jesus Christ and Hamlet
>
> I wouldn't call TPotC a Family movie, I certainly wouldn't let my kid see
> a grown man get his ass beaten for 45 minutes.

Exactly, yet it made almost $400 million at the box office. Which means
that films can still pull in huge attendance, yet not be a "family"
film.

Ken

.